The respondents shall also monitor the effective functioning of the CCTV/Video Surveillance System. Their job would not be over by just installing it, they have to oversee on regular basis that the same are functioning effectively.

The Madras High Court made the above observation while disposing a suo motu petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to submit the report to this Court for the following queries: –

(i) Why scientific advancement with its vast benefits is not fully utilised by the respondents for the benefit of the people especially, towards security of the people, by installation of CCTV cameras in important places, vantage and strategic locations?

(ii) Why the respondents have not allotted required and sufficient funds for the purpose of installation of CCTV cameras with modern integrated control room and other advanced gadgets?

(iii) In how many places, the CCTV cameras have already been fixed?

(iv) In how many places, CCTV cameras are required to be installed?

(v) What is the time required for allocation of funds and installation of CCTV cameras in important places in a war footing manner?

(vi) Why the vacancies in the Police Force, Railway Force, as well as in the other Security Forces including the State Police have not been filled up, even though the Governments are aware of the importance of Police Force and Security Force to prevent the crimes which are increasing day by day?

(vii) Why not create an integrated modern control rooms under a single roof, with real time inputs, connecting CCTV cameras with video recorders, round the clock, on roads and vantage points, connected with Police Stations, in every part of the country, to make it a safer place to live in?

(viii) Why not the State Government immediately install high resolution integrated CCTV cameras, on the roads, to prevent traffic violations, accidents, resultant deaths and injuries, de hors the arbitration proceedings initiated by the contractor regarding the earlier project to install CCTV cameras on the roads?

(ix) Why not all the Governments invite private stakeholders or Corporates, in the above mentioned projects especially persons employed by multinationals and IT Companies, have to necessarily report duty at odd hours?

(x) Why not the Union Government (Ministry of Home Affairs) direct all the State Governments to bring about an important legislation like “ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SAFETY (MEASURES) ENFORCEMENT ACT, 2013” enacted by Andhra Pradesh Government, making it mandatory for private establishments to install CCTV Cameras in the streets of their location or alternatively, why not the Central Government itself enact a comprehensive Central Public Safety Act?

Suo-motu cognizance is taken by this Court in the year 2016 on account of the gruesome daylight murder of a young Software Engineer at Nungambakkam Railway Station on 24.06.2016. This Court had passed orders from time to time in the instant suo-motu petition. This Court expected the installation of CCTV cameras at all important locations and filling up of vacancies of Police Force, Railway Force and other Security Forces.

The railway authorities, on the last date (27.9.2023), had submitted that there are 442 railway stations in the State of Tamil Nadu. 35 railway stations are equipped with CCTV/Video Surveillance System. It was stated that for the remaining 407 railway stations within the Tamil Nadu jurisdiction of Southern Railways, the CCTV/Video Surveillance System would be installed and made operative by 2025. We had observed that the timeline sought for providing CCTV/Video Surveillance System in the remaining railway stations is too long a period.

On November 01, a status report was filed by the fourth respondent thereby laying down the timeline for installation of the CCTV/Video Surveillance System in all the remaining railway stations throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy hope and trust that the railways/fourth respondent would adhere to the timelime and see that the CCTV/Video Surveillance System is installed in all the railway stations within the timeline.

The State has already filed the status report in September, 2023 thereby submitting that the CCTV cameras are installed in the police stations. It is further stated that the CCTV cameras are also installed by the concerned District/Commissionerates at important junctions, important places, vantage and strategic locations based on local requirements. The details are given with regard to the establishment of the CCTV cameras at the important places and also the funds allocated for the same.

The Court accept the status reports filed by the respondents.

The Madras High Court dismissed a Petition filed with a prayer to take immediate steps to remove all flag-poles already erected unauthorisedly on public roads and other public places and to hereafter prevent erection of unauthorised flagpoles on public roads and other public places by any political party or any organisation or any individual anywhere in Tamil Nadu.

The Petition has been filed by one  B.R.Aravindakshan.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the  petition is bereft of details of the erection of the alleged flag- poles. No such incident has been narrated in the petition.  

V.Vargees Amal Raja , counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is filed to ensure that in future flag-poles may not be erected.   

“We cannot entertain the writ petition anticipating future contingencies. There are orders already passed by this Court with regard to erection of hoardings and flag-poles in W.P.No.17768 of 2016, dated 02.04.2019”, the order read.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and the Delhi government on a petition seeking rehabilitation of beggars and homeless to avoid the spread of Covid-19 pandemic in all states and Union Territories across the country.

A Division Bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah said, “There is an urgent need to ensure that these people also deserve as other people of the society to be provided with vaccination.”

The petition was filed by Advocate Kush Kalra through Advocate Mohit Paul and Advocate Sunaina Phul. It said, “The respondents should be directed to ‘prepare a road map in order to restrain beggars and vagabond from begging and roaming on traffic junction and markets to avoid the spread of Covid-19’ and rehabilitate the beggars and the vagabonds with the help of social welfare departments and the District Magistrates of the concerned states.”

Senior Advocate Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, submitted, “We seek rehabilitation of beggars and people on the road, to provide shelters and protection from Covid-19.”

However, Justice Chandrachud contended, “Your prayer seeking removal of beggars from the road, as a Supreme Court we cannot do this. They do not have a shelter, which is why they are there.”

“The petitioner is heart-wrenched to see that till date, no efforts even after the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic have been made by the States and Union Territories in India for the beggars/vagabonds regarding their rehabilitation, who roam in public places, including markets, traffic signals and public places and thereby, they are a risk to the other citizens and carriers for the spread of Covid-19 virus,” he added.

Also Read: Regulating online lending platforms: Delhi High Court defers hearing on plea till August 27

Advocate Paul, clarifying the contention of Justice Chandrachud said, “We don’t want them to be removed from the road, we need their rehabilitation. I’m really sorry if our prayer didn’t come out in the way we wanted it to be.”

The bench, while dictating the order, noted that there is an urgent need to ensure that these people also deserve as other people of the society to be provided with vaccination. The bench has listed the matter for further hearing after two weeks.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by 12 Activists against the verdict of the apex court on the right to protest where the court ruled that public places and roads cannot be occupied indefinitely by protesters. 

The judgment was delivered in response to a batch of pleas filed by the protesters, protesting against the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), in the Shaheen Bagh last year.

The three judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari while dismissing the review petition held that “the constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and express dissent but with an obligation to have certain duties. The right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere. There may be some spontaneous protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued occupation of public place affecting right of others.”

A three-judge bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Krishna Murari and Hrishikesh Roy, while hearing the case earlier had pulled up the Delhi Police for not doing its job under the pretext of having endless talks. The Bench had made the following observations:

• Public places and roads can’t be occupied indefinitely

• Protests permissible only in designated areas

• Right to commute can’t be indefinitely curtailed.

• Right of protest has to be balanced with right to commute

The Shaheen Bagh protest against the passage of the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Act started on December 14, 2019. The protest ended with the advent of Corona pandemic and imposition of national lockdown, after the protesters were removed by the police from the protest site on March 24.

Thereafter, the demonstrators wrote letters to the Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde against their “forcible and vindictive removal” by the Delhi Police and sought a direction from the Supreme Court for citizens’ rights.

The CAA provides citizenship to refugees from six minority communities in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who have entered India on or before December 31, 2014. The Act, passed on December 11, 2019, has been criticised for excluding Muslims. In December, at least 28 people died in protests against the Act, 19 of them from Uttar Pradesh itself. Most of those who died had suffered bullet-inflicted wounds.

Read Also: Supreme Court acquits man sentenced to life imprisonment for murder